Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: ccp on January 08, 2021, 05:34:06 AM
-
https://www.theblaze.com/news/pence-reportedly-enraged-at-trump?utm_source=theblaze-dailyAM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__AM%202021-01-08&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Daily%20AM
Trump is not the man you want to be in a Foxhole with.
-
Pence is in a very interesting position politically right now. I am very curious to see what he does with it.
How old is he?
-
Pence is in a very interesting position politically right now. I am very curious to see what he does with it.
How old is he?
Pence is done.
-
61 yrs old. I think he said he is done with politics.
In a good pisition to write a memoir.
-
Mike Pence Comes Through for America
We were right to be confident in him as we doubted Trump.
By Rick Santorum
Jan. 12, 2021 1:35 pm ET
Twenty sixteen seems like a lifetime ago, but it’s been fewer than five years since conservatives like me were struggling to accept Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for president. Mr. Trump was a thrice-married New York casino magnate, who had given thousands of dollars to liberal politicians including Chuck Schumer and Kamala Harris. Now he was poised to lead the Party of Reagan?
I had my own personal confrontations with Mr. Trump. In 2011 he called me a “loser.” I immediately phoned to remind the not-always successful developer that not winning at everything doesn’t make you a loser—that learning from your defeats makes you a winner. He told me I was “too conservative” and “too pro-life.” A few months later he endorsed Mitt Romney.
So when he was about to secure the 2016 nomination, conservatives like me needed reassurance that he would follow through on the campaign promises he was making. Much of that reassurance came in the form of Mike Pence.
I have known Mr. Pence for 20 years. He is a trusted conservative and, more important, a good man. He served in the House while I was in the Senate. In 2010, when we were both considering 2012 presidential runs, Mike and I had several conversations about our visions, the issues that were driving us to run, and the family considerations we were struggling with. Not until he decided to run for governor of Indiana did I feel compelled to seek the presidency.
We have seen the vice president’s hand in much of Mr. Trump’s accomplishments over the past four years. We saw the man who called me “too pro-life” become the most pro-life president, the first to address the March for Life. We saw it in the nomination of committed constitutionalists like Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And we saw it in the regulatory reforms the administration has made to improve the economic climate.
As a solid conservative, Mr. Pence believes in our Constitution. To him, constitutional conservatism is more than a campaign slogan. It is the foundation of our republic. If we abandon it when it means our side loses, we have lost more than an election—we have lost our country.
Ironically, it was in holding true to his commitment to the Constitution and standing up to the man who elevated him to the vice presidency that Mr. Pence did his greatest service to conservatives, this administration and the nation.
With the president 16 blocks away, threatening the vice president with retribution, Mr. Pence issued a statement that didn’t waver or attempt to appease his boss and the crowd demanding an unconstitutional solution. By clearly and firmly standing for and by our constitutional republic, he became the indispensable leader America needed.
Vice President John Nance Garner famously said that the office wasn’t “worth a bucket of warm [spit].” For much of our history, that was probably true. But Garner likely never imagined the situation Mr. Pence faced Wednesday, when the republic rested in the vice president’s hands and he protected it.
Mr. Santorum served as a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, 1995-2007, and was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 and 2016.
-
I am hoping Pence stays in tune and in politics
-
Me too.
-
Me too.
He's seen as a traitor to many on the right.
-
"He's seen as a traitor to many on the right."
my understanding from the Constitutional experts is he did not have legal authority to do what Trump was asking
I was dubious of the whole elector thing
frankly
it had no chance of succeeding
in MHO
though I reluctantly
went along with it since I thought
it would be good to make a point and make our position heard
Just my opinion
Pence has prove himself to be a great soft spoken warrior for our side
it is not his role to simply jump off. a bridge for Trump
who as usual threw him across the train tracks in the end
after putting up with all his dumb tweets and other shit for 4 yrs
just my take
-
Agreed.
-
RINOs never fight.
Except against the people they are supposed to represent.
-
This is a good place for him and for Heritage.
--------------------------------------------------
Pence joins Heritage Foundation to boost conservative policies
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-vice-president-mike-pence-new-job-heritage
-
https://nypost.com/2021/01/30/hunter-biden-now-laying-low-in-la-focusing-on-a-new-art-career/
-
Ummm , , , wrong thread for that.
-
One novel, even astonishing, spectacle in President Trump’s impeachment trial has been progressive Democrats singing the praises of Mike Pence. “The Vice President and I don’t agree on too much in politics,” Rep. Joaquin Castro told the Senate jurors Wednesday. “But he’s a man who upholds his oath, his faith, his duty, and most of all upholds the Constitution.”
OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
Trump's Trial, Day One / A $15 Minimum Wage
SUBSCRIBE
A moment later Mr. Castro called Mr. Pence “a patriot.” Other Democrats concur. “Vice President Pence had the courage to stand against the President, tell the American public the truth, and uphold our Constitution,” said Stacey Plaskett, the delegate for the Virgin Islands. “That is patriotism.” Rep. Ted Lieu said Mr. Pence “stood his ground, like our other brave officials stood their ground.” He added: “Vice President Pence showed us what it means to be an American, what it means to show courage.”
Mr. Pence is probably en route to Walter Reed with symptoms of acute whiplash. For years he has been mocked as a Trump bootlicker, a religious weirdo and bigot. In a 2019 tweet directed at Mr. Pence, Mr. Lieu said he hoped “your hate of LGBTQ employees and students will one day dissipate.” On July 16, 2018, Mr. Castro tweeted: “Mike Pence @VP is a Trump zombie at this point.”
Recall the furor in 2015 when Mr. Pence, as Indiana’s Governor, signed a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Or remember the coverage of Mr. Pence’s years-ago comment that he wouldn’t go to dinner alone with a woman not his wife. Amid the pushing for a first impeachment of Mr. Trump, the media offered grave warnings that President Pence might be even worse.
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.
PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBED
All that is now forgotten, but don’t expect this strange new respect on the left for Mr. Pence to last. As soon as the second impeachment trial wraps, he will go back to being another dark figure in a political “Handmaid’s Tale” told to inspire fear and loathing among Democratic voters. But for everyone else, Mr. Pence’s defense of the rule of law and the Electoral College should stand as a refutation of that caricature.
As the Republican Party debates its best way forward, some of the GOP’s self-appointed popes want to excommunicate anyone who worked for Mr. Trump. Would the country have been better off the past four years with a low-caliber Vice President devoid of higher loyalties? The events of Jan. 6 proved that claim wrong.
On the other hand, some of Mr. Trump’s most avid fans look upon Mr. Pence as a political Judas because he refused to act in an unconstitutional fashion. This replaces loyalty to the Constitution with loyalty to one man, Donald Trump.
Mr. Castro is right that Mr. Pence is a patriot, who upheld his constitutional duty in the face of Mr. Trump’s jeers and threats. The country should remember this demonstration of principle long after it stops being a Democratic argument in an impeachment trial.
-
agree with WSJ conclusions
on Mike Pence
Maybe he should run in '24.
I would not vote for Trump again unless he is last resort or up against a Democrat of flaming Romney type
I don't want to lose
again
-
Still can't give up the voting fantasy, eh?
:roll:
agree with WSJ conclusions
on Mike Pence
Maybe he should run in '24.
I would not vote for Trump again unless he is last resort or up against a Democrat of flaming Romney type
I don't want to lose
again
-
".Still can't give up the voting fantasy, eh?
:roll:"
no, I am just a dupe who believes the Trump "lies the conspiracy theories" and "q anon" (I still have no idea who that is or give a crap)
I just cant think for myself
I will be lost without Trump I am without a doubt a Trump cultist
as are the 75 million who voted for him (and probably more votes that were erased or discarded or switched or all the above)
without him I/we might actually believe all the Democrat propaganda and want to bring the party back to Jeb or even vote for Biden Harris or Michelle
and give my life for BLM
and the new world order
and be good soldier for them and for Zuckerberg and Bloombergs
and of course BFF with the CCP (the other ccp)
-
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/nuclear-football-vice-president-pence.html?fbclid=IwAR0n7DN02e4IltIOxAeMD82O6kvKsrSJYPAPf2Xguzp3g5v5Zt-iH_K-RqA
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/16/how-loyal-was-mike-pence/
-
".Pence’s demonstrations of treacly piety help disguise the fact that he is a cunning creature of the swamp."
give me a break
Trump is the most rude irritating person to work with or for
he tweets dumb ass shit every week
never warns his colleagues
and expects to just blindly obey
like dump ass soldiers
this is a hit job on Pence
who was clearly very loyal every step of the way
putting up with Trumps child outbursts , having to answer for them daily
and even was targeted because he would not and really could not
fail to certify the electors
yes Trump and we were robbed
get over it
we were screwed
move on
if trump wants to give advise that is ok with me
but I do not want to have to vote for him again
as many people he brings to the party he turns as many away with his antics
millions voted for him - but not for him - but against the Dems
we need someone who can fight like him without the personality
Pence is good
and he could have gotten killed for all we know
-
Political purgatory: Mike Pence missing in action as Trump makes triumphant return
As former President Donald Trump teased his political comeback to conservatives this weekend, his one-time wingman, ex-Vice President Mike Pence, was nowhere to be found.
-
headlines like this are just so unhelpful
Pence is not the enemy
Democrats are
agree with Pence for upholding the Constitution
https://populist.press/bombshell-lin-wood-leaks-whistleblower-transcripts-exposing-vp-pence/
populist press has become a mouthpiece for the world's greatest narcissist.
Often but not always good for future of conservatism or Republican Party
-
Pence could have stood up against the fraud. He rubberstamped the end of the American Republic.
headlines like this are just so unhelpful
Pence is not the enemy
Democrats are
agree with Pence for upholding the Constitution
https://populist.press/bombshell-lin-wood-leaks-whistleblower-transcripts-exposing-vp-pence/
populist press has become a mouthpiece for the world's greatest narcissist.
Often but not always good for future of conservatism or Republican Party
-
do you honestly think if Pence did what Trump wanted
it would have worked?
the "Republic would have been saved?"
How so?
he was being realistic
-
The he could have tried. Made the SCOTUS rule on it. Something other than just rolling over.
do you honestly think if Pence did what Trump wanted
it would have worked?
the "Republic would have been saved?"
How so?
he was being realistic
-
Made the SCOTUS rule on it
:roll:
-
Made the SCOTUS rule on it
:roll:
Our professional republicans are never willing to fight. The dems always are, and cheat as well. Now with the wide open border, this country is done.
-
https://dailycaller.com/2021/03/04/mike-pence-narrate-fox-nation-series-rush-limbaugh/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2360&pnespid=kflrtOQFCgiN_Q7HCEd1rRuyESvOU0OHQ0xGnAkI
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/mar/7/know-when-hold-em-pence-playing-his-cards-right-pl/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=manual&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=Xl2dlrvvT52uRo1dxfimYISF1Y1%2FwCgLhKljS%2BiY5nAVwoFILXwqTBpeiniJN4Q0&bt_ts=1615136595456
-
Congress Sowed the Seeds of Jan. 6 in 1887
The Electoral Vote Count Act lets Congress think it can choose the President, but it’s unconstitutional.
By J. Michael Luttig and David B. Rivkin Jr.
March 18, 2021 12:59 pm ET
Congress plans to establish a commission to investigate the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol. We already know one reason for that terrible event. Members of the mob acted in the mistaken belief, encouraged by President Trump, that lawmakers had the power to determine the election’s winner. Congress itself sowed the seeds of this belief when it passed the Electoral Vote Count Act of 1887 and could destroy it root and branch by repealing that law.
The EVCA grew out of another bitterly contested presidential election. In 1876 officials in Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina certified competing slates of electors, one for Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and one for Democrat Samuel J. Tilden ; a single electoral vote from Oregon was similarly contested. The 20 disputed votes were enough to decide the election. A congressional commission ultimately chose Hayes in a political deal. In exchange for the presidency, Republicans agreed to end Reconstruction and withdraw federal troops from the South.
The EVCA was enacted 10 years later, largely to limit Congress’s role in determining which electoral votes to accept. Yet Congress gave itself more authority than the Constitution allows, by establishing a labyrinthine process to resolve state electoral-vote challenges. The most constitutionally offensive provision gave Congress the absolute power to invalidate electoral votes as “irregularly given,” a process that a single representative and senator can trigger by filing an objection.
Fortunately, this provision has seldom been invoked—only twice before 2021—and no objection has ever been sustained. But this year Republican lawmakers vowed to contest the results in six swing states that Joe Biden carried. Although the objections had no prospect of success in a Democratic House and those that were filed (for Arizona and Pennsylvania) were voted down overwhelmingly in both chambers, the law put Congress smack in the middle, where it uncomfortably found itself in 1876.
That’s not what the Framers intended. The Constitution’s Electors Clause gives state legislatures plenary authority over the manner of choosing electors and relegates Congress to determining on what day the Electoral College would cast its votes. The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, reformed the Electoral College by providing for separate votes for president and vice president. It also reiterates the Article II, Section 1 language that the certified state electoral results are to be transmitted to Washington, opened by the president of the Senate, and counted in the presence of both congressional houses.
No constitutional provision empowers Congress to resolve disputes over the validity of a state’s electoral slate—or for that matter addresses who is to resolve these disputes. Significantly, the 12th Amendment gives Congress no power to enact legislation to enforce its provisions, unlike subsequent amendments expanding the franchise. The Necessary and Proper Clause doesn’t support such legislation either. The constitutional text contains further indications that the Framers chose to exclude Congress from participating in presidential elections. While Article I, Section 5 grants Congress the authority to judge the elections of its own members, no such power is given with regard to presidential elections. And Article II, Section 1 forbids members of Congress from being appointed as electors.
In fact, after much debate, the Framers deliberately chose to deny Congress any substantive role in selecting the president and vice president, except in the rare case that no candidate has an Electoral College majority. This was for compelling separation-of-powers reasons. As Gouverneur Morris explained at the time, “if the Executive be chosen by the [National] Legislature, he will not be independent [of] it; and if not independent, usurpation and tyranny on the part of the Legislature will be the consequence.”
Thus Congress’s prescribed role as audience during the process of opening and counting the electoral votes is ministerial. With electoral college votes coming from all of the states, the counting had to be performed by a federal government entity, and both the executive and judicial branches had potential conflicts of interest. That Congress has no constitutional “skin in the game” of presidential selection made it perfectly positioned for this role of official observer.
Who then does have the power to settle disputes over electoral slates, such as those in 1876 and 2020? Whether electors are validly chosen is a quintessentially legal determination, not a political one. When state legislatures select presidential electors, they exercise power vested in them by the U.S. Constitution, not by state law. As the power to say what federal law is rests with the federal judiciary, it is the federal courts that have the authority and the responsibility to resolve these disputes.
Congress should promptly repeal the Electoral Vote Counting Act. Given the tight constitutional timeline for casting and counting votes and inaugurating a president, lawmakers should enact a statute providing for expeditious federal judicial resolution of all questions relating to compliance with state legislatively established procedures for selecting presidential electors, the validity of elector selection, and the casting of electoral votes—and requiring eventual mandatory Supreme Court review.
By ridding the country of this unconstitutional and anachronistic law, lawmakers would remove themselves from the process for choosing the president and surrender back to the federal judiciary the role Congress unconstitutionally arrogated to itself almost a century and a half ago. That would go a long way toward ensuring that America never witnesses a siege on the National Capitol on a future Jan. 6.
Mr. Luttig served as a judge on the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1991-2006. He advised Vice President Mike Pence on the 2020 vote certification. Mr. Rivkin practices appellate and constitutional law in Washington. He served in the White House Counsel’s Office and Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
-
https://twitter.com/AndrewSolender/status/1405928997880533003
-
https://twitter.com/AndrewSolender/status/1405928997880533003
Mike Pence did nothing wrong. (IMHO)
Democrats cheated in Republican states. Exactly how much, no one knows. Republicans and honest Americans of all types in those states should have stopped them, caught them, counted valid votes accurately and certified correct results. What was Mike Pence supposed to do on Jan.6? Certify the candidate trailing in the electoral college? Held up the result past the constitutional deadline? I don't think so. It's June and we still don't have a single state overturned. None of this is Mike Pence's fault. He was a great Vice President. He threaded the needle between supporting the President, supporting good policies, and keeping sanity alive.
-
Agreed.
-
This is why the left wins.
The right's "Lose with dignity" strategy isn't really working, is it?
https://twitter.com/AndrewSolender/status/1405928997880533003
Mike Pence did nothing wrong. (IMHO)
Democrats cheated in Republican states. Exactly how much, no one knows. Republicans and honest Americans of all types in those states should have stopped them, caught them, counted valid votes accurately and certified correct results. What was Mike Pence supposed to do on Jan.6? Certify the candidate trailing in the electoral college? Held up the result past the constitutional deadline? I don't think so. It's June and we still don't have a single state overturned. None of this is Mike Pence's fault. He was a great Vice President. He threaded the needle between supporting the President, supporting good policies, and keeping sanity alive.
-
This is why the left wins.
The right's "Lose with dignity" strategy isn't really working, is it?
Good point. New strategy. Win with dignity. )
And Mike Pence won't be the candidate.
Too much dignity - not the worst quality. Reminds me of when my boss said I was too honest to be in sales.
Had Pence been elevated to President during his four years as VP, he would have been a good one.
One reason Trump lost, he had a horrible first debate (for various reasons). The dignity of Pence would have served us well that day. Pence would not have lost us the Senate in Georgia. Pence did everything asked of him - except betray the constitution.
-
Trump "lost" because of massive fraud. Pence could have stood up against it, but choose to roll over.
This is why the left wins.
The right's "Lose with dignity" strategy isn't really working, is it?
Good point. New strategy. Win with dignity. )
And Mike Pence won't be the candidate.
Too much dignity - not the worst quality. Reminds me of when my boss said I was too honest to be in sales.
Had Pence been elevated to President during his four years as VP, he would have been a good one.
One reason Trump lost, he had a horrible first debate (for various reasons). The dignity of Pence would have served us well that day. Pence would not have lost us the Senate in Georgia. Pence did everything asked of him - except betray the constitution.
-
"Pence could have stood up against it"
How?
-
"Pence could have stood up against it"
How?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A115/165483/20210106111314445_Gohmert%20v%20Pence%20Stay%20Appl%20signed.pdf
-
"Pence could have stood up against it"
How?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A115/165483/20210106111314445_Gohmert%20v%20Pence%20Stay%20Appl%20signed.pdf
He should have broken federal law based on it being unconstitutional even though the challenge to that was unsuccessful all the way up to the Supreme Court?
The evidence he could have cited was that "we (on the right) all know they cheated."
More realistically, he could have resigned as his refusal to carry out a wrongful duty. That wouldn't have changed the result. We still don't have concrete evidence to overturn a single state.
Do we really want the sitting VP (Kamala Harris now) to have the power to overturn state certified results?
-----------
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/533161-supreme-court-rejects-gohmerts-last-ditch-election-suit-against
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a last-ditch lawsuit by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) that sought to expand Vice President Pence's legal authority to effectively overturn President-elect Joe Biden's electoral win.
The justices' denial of Gohmert's bid, which took the form of a brief unsigned order, came after Congress certified Biden's victory early Thursday morning.
Election law experts had expected Gohmert's effort to fail, after the suit's quick dismissal by lower federal courts in recent weeks.
Gohmert and his co-plaintiffs, which included Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward and other Republicans, filed their Supreme Court request Wednesday, just moments before Pence began presiding over a joint session of Congress to finalize President Trump's electoral defeat.
The session was interrupted when a mob incited by Trump breached the U.S. Capitol in a violent attack. Lawmakers returned hours later to complete certification of the 2020 presidential election results.
The far-fetched legal effort by Gohmert sought to permit Pence to sidestep federal election law during the electoral vote count in Congress. Had the unrealistic bid succeeded, it would have allowed Pence to dispense with his statutory duty to finalize Biden's win and effectively grant himself and Trump a second term.
Pence said publicly that he lacked the legal authority to undertake such a maneuver. In a letter to Congress released just moments before Wednesday's joint session convened, Pence said he did not have the "unilateral authority" to reject electoral votes.
-
"Do we really want the sitting VP (Kamala Harris now) to have the power to overturn state certified results?"
Do you think they wouldn't hesitate to do so? Just like they didn't hesitate to run an obvious vote fraud operation nationwide in 2020.
"Pence could have stood up against it"
How?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A115/165483/20210106111314445_Gohmert%20v%20Pence%20Stay%20Appl%20signed.pdf
He should have broken federal law based on it being unconstitutional even though the challenge to that was unsuccessful all the way up to the Supreme Court?
The evidence he could have cited was that "we (on the right) all know they cheated."
More realistically, he could have resigned as his refusal to carry out a wrongful duty. That wouldn't have changed the result. We still don't have concrete evidence to overturn a single state.
Do we really want the sitting VP (Kamala Harris now) to have the power to overturn state certified results?
-----------
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/533161-supreme-court-rejects-gohmerts-last-ditch-election-suit-against
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a last-ditch lawsuit by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) that sought to expand Vice President Pence's legal authority to effectively overturn President-elect Joe Biden's electoral win.
The justices' denial of Gohmert's bid, which took the form of a brief unsigned order, came after Congress certified Biden's victory early Thursday morning.
Election law experts had expected Gohmert's effort to fail, after the suit's quick dismissal by lower federal courts in recent weeks.
Gohmert and his co-plaintiffs, which included Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward and other Republicans, filed their Supreme Court request Wednesday, just moments before Pence began presiding over a joint session of Congress to finalize President Trump's electoral defeat.
The session was interrupted when a mob incited by Trump breached the U.S. Capitol in a violent attack. Lawmakers returned hours later to complete certification of the 2020 presidential election results.
The far-fetched legal effort by Gohmert sought to permit Pence to sidestep federal election law during the electoral vote count in Congress. Had the unrealistic bid succeeded, it would have allowed Pence to dispense with his statutory duty to finalize Biden's win and effectively grant himself and Trump a second term.
Pence said publicly that he lacked the legal authority to undertake such a maneuver. In a letter to Congress released just moments before Wednesday's joint session convened, Pence said he did not have the "unilateral authority" to reject electoral votes.
-
VP Joe Biden did not do it in 2016.
-
VP Joe Biden did not do it in 2016.
They were caught off guard. They WILL NEVER let go of power again peacefully.
-
NR PLUS MEMBER FULL VIEW
The Case for Mike Pence
Good morning and happy Friday, Jolters. On the menu today: The January 6 hearings make the case for Mike Pence and the GOP’s celebrity-candidate problem.
Mike Pence Would Be a Great President
I don’t think Mike Pence will be the GOP’s nominee for president in 2024, and I don’t think he’s been perfect in his approach to politics or its major questions over the last six years. Still, the fact remains that he would be an excellent president of the United States.
What do you need to be an effective chief executive in this country? Well, you need to have some sort of articulable vision and worldview. Pence, as a rock-ribbed, Reaganite conservative with experience touting faith, family, and freedom on the stump and the speaking circuit, has that. Some may call it stale, but many of us still think it’s just about the hottest thing in town.
What else? You have to be a political talent. Pence may not be filling stadiums the way his old boss used to, but he’s unflappable and focused, and he can tap into just enough of the fiery radio host he once was when he needs to. Consider the ease with which he dispatched Tim Kaine and Kamala Harris — admittedly two of our age’s great mediocrities — in his two debate showdowns with them. Pence is surgical in his attacks, clearly explaining the absurdities and illogic of his opponents, all with a cheerful, happy-warrior presentation.
What else? Instincts — good ones. Say what you will about Pence’s decision to jump on the Trump ticket and serve as one of the most fiercely loyal vice presidents in American history, it turned him from a relatively anonymous governor into a national political force. Many might have been reticent to join Donald Trump in 2016, when it appeared he was heading for a loss to Hillary Clinton, but Pence joined the team and stayed the course. Even now, Pence is more than happy to cite his contributions to the Trump-Pence administration as his chief qualification to be at the head of a Pence administration. If he does have a shot at the top job, he’ll need to lean into that legacy, even as he distances himself from Trump the man.
What more does he need to prove that he could be commander in chief? To be frank, a spine. Pence is a mensch, self-evidently so. Oftentimes, that character trait seemed so discordant with his obsequious treatment of the decidedly un-mensch-like Trump that it left observers wondering how much of his own man he could be. Perhaps we didn’t need to hear so often about his boss’s “broad shoulders,” for example.
But Pence drew the line where he needed to, resisting Trump’s call to try to reject the legitimate Electoral College results in 2020. Under great pressure both public and private, he weathered the storm and did his duty, even though his political interests may have been better served by lending more credence to “stop the steal.”
Marc Short, formerly Pence’s chief of staff and Trump’s director of legislative affairs, testified to the January 6 Committee that Pence made his position clear “many times” and was “very consistent” in insisting he could not do as Trump asked. “The vice president really was not wavering in his commitment to what he — what his responsibility was,” said Short.
Greg Jacob, Pence’s chief counsel at the time, testified that “the vice president never budged from the position that I have described as his first instinct, which was that it just made no sense from everything that he knew and had studied about our Constitution that one person would have that kind of authority.”
And Pence never wavered in spite of Trump’s promise that he wouldn’t “want to be your [Pence’s] friend anymore if you don’t do this” — and in spite of Trump’s following through on that promise when the president egged on a mob chanting “hang Mike Pence” by tweeting “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.”
Mike Pence did, in fact, have the courage to do what should have been done that day, and he would bring both prudence and principle to the Oval Office in the unlikely event he were to occupy it.
He’s earned that acknowledgment, at the very least.
-
Pence sold us out.
NR PLUS MEMBER FULL VIEW
The Case for Mike Pence
Good morning and happy Friday, Jolters. On the menu today: The January 6 hearings make the case for Mike Pence and the GOP’s celebrity-candidate problem.
Mike Pence Would Be a Great President
I don’t think Mike Pence will be the GOP’s nominee for president in 2024, and I don’t think he’s been perfect in his approach to politics or its major questions over the last six years. Still, the fact remains that he would be an excellent president of the United States.
What do you need to be an effective chief executive in this country? Well, you need to have some sort of articulable vision and worldview. Pence, as a rock-ribbed, Reaganite conservative with experience touting faith, family, and freedom on the stump and the speaking circuit, has that. Some may call it stale, but many of us still think it’s just about the hottest thing in town.
What else? You have to be a political talent. Pence may not be filling stadiums the way his old boss used to, but he’s unflappable and focused, and he can tap into just enough of the fiery radio host he once was when he needs to. Consider the ease with which he dispatched Tim Kaine and Kamala Harris — admittedly two of our age’s great mediocrities — in his two debate showdowns with them. Pence is surgical in his attacks, clearly explaining the absurdities and illogic of his opponents, all with a cheerful, happy-warrior presentation.
What else? Instincts — good ones. Say what you will about Pence’s decision to jump on the Trump ticket and serve as one of the most fiercely loyal vice presidents in American history, it turned him from a relatively anonymous governor into a national political force. Many might have been reticent to join Donald Trump in 2016, when it appeared he was heading for a loss to Hillary Clinton, but Pence joined the team and stayed the course. Even now, Pence is more than happy to cite his contributions to the Trump-Pence administration as his chief qualification to be at the head of a Pence administration. If he does have a shot at the top job, he’ll need to lean into that legacy, even as he distances himself from Trump the man.
What more does he need to prove that he could be commander in chief? To be frank, a spine. Pence is a mensch, self-evidently so. Oftentimes, that character trait seemed so discordant with his obsequious treatment of the decidedly un-mensch-like Trump that it left observers wondering how much of his own man he could be. Perhaps we didn’t need to hear so often about his boss’s “broad shoulders,” for example.
But Pence drew the line where he needed to, resisting Trump’s call to try to reject the legitimate Electoral College results in 2020. Under great pressure both public and private, he weathered the storm and did his duty, even though his political interests may have been better served by lending more credence to “stop the steal.”
Marc Short, formerly Pence’s chief of staff and Trump’s director of legislative affairs, testified to the January 6 Committee that Pence made his position clear “many times” and was “very consistent” in insisting he could not do as Trump asked. “The vice president really was not wavering in his commitment to what he — what his responsibility was,” said Short.
Greg Jacob, Pence’s chief counsel at the time, testified that “the vice president never budged from the position that I have described as his first instinct, which was that it just made no sense from everything that he knew and had studied about our Constitution that one person would have that kind of authority.”
And Pence never wavered in spite of Trump’s promise that he wouldn’t “want to be your [Pence’s] friend anymore if you don’t do this” — and in spite of Trump’s following through on that promise when the president egged on a mob chanting “hang Mike Pence” by tweeting “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.”
Mike Pence did, in fact, have the courage to do what should have been done that day, and he would bring both prudence and principle to the Oval Office in the unlikely event he were to occupy it.
He’s earned that acknowledgment, at the very least.
-
I've been following the legal arguments fairly closely and I am not seeing that the Eastman-Trump legal argument had much strength.
-
https://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=400538
-
"Mike Pence: Talking About Defunding the FBI is Just Like Talking About Defunding the Police "
I agree with Pence
"defunding the FBI is not sensible"
we need to strengthen it especially with white collar crime in MHO
what we do need to do is clean house of the partisans who are law enforcement for the DNC
-
You are the target for the FBI
WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND THAT!
"Mike Pence: Talking About Defunding the FBI is Just Like Talking About Defunding the Police "
I agree with Pence
"defunding the FBI is not sensible"
we need to strengthen it especially with white collar crime in MHO
what we do need to do is clean house of the partisans who are law enforcement for the DNC
-
yes
that is why I state we should clean house of those at FBI who are targeting us
not defund them
re direct them back to their original missions
-
New smaller agencies with different missions is the answer.
The FBI needs to be made an example of. Salt the earth where it stood. Destroy careers as a lesson to other gov employees.
yes
that is why I state we should clean house of those at FBI who are targeting us
not defund them
re direct them back to their original missions
-
Mike Pence: My Last Days With Donald Trump
I supported legitimate challenges to the 2020 vote counts. I also recognized that the Constitution didn’t give me authority to override the voters—and I followed my conscience on Jan. 6.
By Mike Pence
Nov. 9, 2022 2:49 pm ET
Thirteen days after the 2020 election, I had lunch with President Trump. I told him that if his legal challenges came up short, he could simply accept the results, move forward with the transition, and start a political comeback, winning the Senate runoffs in Georgia, the 2021 Virginia governor’s race, and the House and Senate in 2022. Then he could run for president in 2024 and win. He seemed unmoved, even weary: “I don’t know, 2024 is so far off.”
In a Dec. 5 call, the president for the first time mentioned challenging the election results in Congress. By mid-December, the internet was filled with speculation about my role. An irresponsible TV ad by a group calling itself the Lincoln Project suggested that when I presided over the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes, it would prove that I knew “it’s over,” and that by doing my constitutional duty, I would be “putting the final nail in the coffin” of the president’s re-election. To my knowledge, it was the first time anyone implied I might be able to change the outcome. It was designed to annoy the president. It worked. During a December cabinet meeting, President Trump told me the ad “looked bad for you.” I replied that it wasn’t true: I had fully supported the legal challenges to the election and would continue to do so.
On Dec. 19, the president mentioned plans for a rally in Washington on Jan. 6. I thought that would be useful to call attention to the proceedings. I had just spoken with a senator about the importance of vetting concerns about the election before Congress and the American people. At the White House on Dec. 21, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan led lawmakers in a discussion about plans to bring objections. I promised that all properly submitted objections would be recognized and fully debated.
On Dec. 23, my family boarded Air Force Two to spend Christmas with friends. As we flew across America, President Trump retweeted an obscure article titled “Operation Pence Card.” It alluded to the theory that if all else failed, I could alter the outcome of the election on Jan. 6. I showed it to Karen, my wife, and rolled my eyes.
On Dec. 30, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley announced that he would co-sponsor election objections brought by representatives. I welcomed Sen. Hawley’s decision because it meant we would have a substantive debate. Without a senator’s support, I would have been required to dismiss House objections without debate, something I didn’t want to do.
Early on New Year’s Day, the phone rang. Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert and other Republicans had filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to declare that I had “exclusive authority and sole discretion” to decide which electoral votes should count. “I don’t want to see ‘Pence Opposes Gohmert Suit’ as a headline this morning,” the president said. I told him I did oppose it. “If it gives you the power,” he asked, “why would you oppose it?” I told him, as I had many times, that I didn’t believe I possessed that power under the Constitution.
“You’re too honest,” he chided. “Hundreds of thousands are gonna hate your guts. . . . People are gonna think you’re stupid.”
On Saturday, Jan. 2, I instructed my chief of staff to issue a statement supporting the right of lawmakers to bring objections under the Electoral Count Act. By Sunday morning, the headline “Pence Welcomes Congressional Republicans’ Bid to Challenge Electoral Votes” was everywhere. When the president called me that morning, his mood had brightened. “You have gone from very unpopular to popular!” he exclaimed. But then he pressed me again to reject electoral votes unilaterally. “You can be a historic figure,” he said, “but if you wimp out, you’re just another somebody.”
On Jan. 4, the president’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, summoned me to the Oval Office for a meeting with a long list of attendees, including the legal scholar John Eastman. I listened respectfully as Mr. Eastman argued that I should modify the proceedings, which require that electoral votes be opened and counted in alphabetical order, by saving the five disputed states until the end. Mr. Eastman claimed I had the authority to return the votes to the states until each legislature certified which of the competing slate of electors for the state was correct. I had already confirmed that there were no competing electors.
Mr. Eastman repeatedly qualified his argument, saying it was only a legal theory. I asked, “Do you think I have the authority to reject or return votes?”
He stammered, “Well, it’s never been tested in the courts, so I think it is an open question.”
At that I turned to the president, who was distracted, and said, “Mr. President, did you hear that? Even your lawyer doesn’t think I have the authority to return electoral votes.” The president nodded. As Mr. Eastman struggled to explain, the president replied, “I like the other thing better,” presumably meaning that I could simply reject electoral votes.
On Jan. 5, I got an urgent call that the president was asking to see me in the Oval Office. The president’s lawyers, including Mr. Eastman, were now requesting that I simply reject the electors. I later learned that Mr. Eastman had conceded to my general counsel that rejecting electoral votes was a bad idea and any attempt to do so would be quickly overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court. This guy didn’t even believe what he was telling the president.
Right before going to bed, I saw that the Trump campaign had issued a statement. The New York Times reported that I had told the president I didn’t believe I had the power to block congressional certification of the election. That was true, but the statement called it “fake news.” I had a feeling that Jan. 6, 2021, was going to be a very long day.
I rose early that day and worked on my statement to Congress. When the phone rang a little after 11 a.m., it was the president. “Despite the press release you issued last night,” I said, “I have always been forthright with you, Mr. President.” I reiterated that I didn’t believe I had the power to decide which electoral votes would count and said I would be issuing a statement to Congress confirming that before the joint session started.
The president laid into me. “You’ll go down as a wimp,” he said. “If you do that, I made a big mistake five years ago!”
But when he said, “You’re not protecting our country, you’re supposed to support and defend our country!” I calmly reminded him, “We both took an oath to support and defend the Constitution.”
As I headed to the Capitol, President Trump took the stage. He told the crowd: “I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election.” Repeating the argument made by the crank lawyers standing just offstage, he said, “All he has to do, all this is, this is from the No. 1, or certainly one of the top, constitutional lawyers in our country. . . . All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.”
As our motorcade arrived at the Capitol, I saw thousands of protesters standing peacefully on the East Lawn. I felt compassion for all the good people who had traveled to Washington having been told that the outcome of the election could be changed. They cheered as we entered. I turned to my daughter and sighed: “God bless those people. They’re gonna be so disappointed.”
I had no idea that what was later described as a “wall of people” had formed about a block west of the Capitol. As I led senators onto the House floor, the mood was solemn. There was no indication of the mayhem unfolding outside. Speaker Nancy Pelosi gaveled the chamber into session a little after 1 p.m.
When the electoral votes for Arizona were opened, Rep. Paul Gosar rose to raise the first objection of the day, co-sponsored by 60 representatives. When I asked if the motion had a Senate sponsor, Ted Cruz rose. I adjourned the joint session and accompanied senators back to their chamber, still oblivious to the riot outside.
Forty minutes into the session, Republican James Lankford of Oklahoma had the floor when the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, seated a few feet in front of me, leaned back in her chair and whispered: “Mr. Vice President, protesters have breached the building’s doors on the first floor. Just informing you.”
A member of my Secret Service detail walked onto the Senate floor, straight to my chair, and said, “Mr. Vice President, we gotta go.” I was confident that the U.S. Capitol Police would soon have the situation in hand, so I told him we’d wait in the nearby ceremonial office reserved for my use as president of the Senate.
Soon my lead Secret Service agent, Timothy Giebels, walked into that crowded office and said, “Sir, we’ve got to get you out of the building.” The protesters who had smashed their way into the House side of the Capitol were heading for the Senate. I later learned that many had come looking for me.
I told my detail that I wasn’t leaving my post. Mr. Giebels pleaded for us to leave. The rioters had reached our floor. I pointed my finger at his chest and said, “You’re not hearing me, I’m not leaving! I’m not giving those people the sight of a 16-car motorcade speeding away from the Capitol.”
“OK,” he answered in a voice that made it clear that it wasn’t. “Well, we can’t stay here. This office only has a glass door, and we can’t protect you.”
My daughter Charlotte, sensing my frustration, asked, “Isn’t there somewhere else dad can go that is still in the Capitol?” Mr. Giebels said we could move to the loading dock and garage, a few stories below. I agreed.
The steps were secured. We walked out into the hall slowly. All around us was a blur of motion and chaos: security and police officers directing people to safety, staffers shouting and running for shelter. I heard footsteps and angry chanting. Making our way to the basement of the Capitol took a few extra minutes because I insisted that we walk, not run. The Secret Service team grudgingly accommodated me.
Arriving in the loading dock, we saw that our motorcade had been repositioned, with all the cars pointed toward a ramp leading out. Mr. Giebels began to escort us toward our cars. I stopped and said, “I’m not getting in the car.”
“Sir,” he replied, “we’re just going to have you wait in the car, but we are not leaving the Capitol.”
“Tim, I believe you,” I said. “You’re a man of integrity, but you’re not driving that car.” I knew that if we got into the car, somebody would tell the driver to get us out of the building.
We had no television in the garage, so my staff and security team briefed me on the situation using police radio communications and Twitter. The House and Senate leaders had been whisked away to a secure location off Capitol Hill, but other members were barricaded in the House chamber as Capitol Police worked to hold back the mob.
My unflappable assistant Zach Bauer walked up sheepishly and handed me his phone. The president had sent a tweet at 2:24 p.m.: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”
Rioters were ransacking the Capitol. Some of them, I was later told, were chanting, “Hang Mike Pence!” I ignored the tweet and got back to work.
My chief of staff arranged for a conference call with the congressional leadership. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made the point that it was imperative Congress reconvene as soon as possible to complete the vote count. Everyone agreed.
By 2:38 p.m., it appeared that cooler heads had prevailed at the White House. The president tweeted, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” A half hour later, he urged the rioters to “remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order—respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue.” At 4:17 p.m., the president issued a video telling the rioters, “I know your pain, I know your hurt . . . but you have to go home now, we have to have peace.”
By 7 p.m., we had been cleared to return to my office. When the session reconvened, everything changed. Many lawmakers withdrew support for objections that had been properly filed. Beyond the violence and destruction, the Jan. 6 rioters had managed to end the debate over election irregularities. At around 3:40 a.m., Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota read the results of the 2020 election.
I met with the president on Jan. 11. He looked tired, and his voice seemed fainter than usual. “How are you?” he began. “How are Karen and Charlotte?” I replied tersely that we were fine and told him that they had been at the Capitol on Jan. 6. He responded with a hint of regret, “I just learned that.” He then asked, “Were you scared?”
“No,” I replied, “I was angry. You and I had our differences that day, Mr. President, and seeing those people tearing up the Capitol infuriated me.”
He started to bring up the election, saying that people were angry, but his voice trailed off.
I told him he had to set that aside, and he responded quietly, “Yeah.”
I said, “Those people who broke into the Capitol might’ve been supporters, but they are not our movement.” For five years, we had both spoken to crowds of the most patriotic, law-abiding, God-fearing people in the country.
With genuine sadness in his voice, the president mused: “What if we hadn’t had the rally? What if they hadn’t gone to the Capitol?” Then he said, “It’s too terrible to end like this.”
On Jan. 14, the day after President Trump was impeached for the second time, I stopped by the Oval Office. The night before, he had unequivocally denounced the violence at the Capitol and called for calm and national unity. I congratulated him on his address. “I knew you’d like it,” he said. He seemed discouraged, so I reminded him that I was praying for him.
“Don’t bother,” he said.
As I stood to leave, he said, “It’s been fun.”
“A privilege, Mr. President,” I answered.
“Yeah, with you.”
Walking toward the door leading to the hallway, I paused, looked the president in the eye, and said, “I guess we will just have to disagree on two things.”
“What?”
I referred to our disagreement about Jan. 6 and then said, “I’m also never gonna stop praying for you.”
He smiled: “That’s right—don’t ever change.”
Mr. Pence was vice president of the United States, 2017-21. This is adapted from his memoir, “So Help Me God,” forthcoming Nov. 15.
-
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/05/18/pence-trump-medicare-and-social-security-policy-is-identical-to-joe-bidens/
agree
dishonesty and cowardice will ruin us
and the answer can't be : "make the rich pay!" though the LEFT will scream , screech and yell this .
need a counter to that right off the bat
-
Traitorous scumbag.
He was an essential part of the coup.
Mike Pence: My Last Days With Donald Trump
I supported legitimate challenges to the 2020 vote counts. I also recognized that the Constitution didn’t give me authority to override the voters—and I followed my conscience on Jan. 6.
By Mike Pence
Nov. 9, 2022 2:49 pm ET
Thirteen days after the 2020 election, I had lunch with President Trump. I told him that if his legal challenges came up short, he could simply accept the results, move forward with the transition, and start a political comeback, winning the Senate runoffs in Georgia, the 2021 Virginia governor’s race, and the House and Senate in 2022. Then he could run for president in 2024 and win. He seemed unmoved, even weary: “I don’t know, 2024 is so far off.”
In a Dec. 5 call, the president for the first time mentioned challenging the election results in Congress. By mid-December, the internet was filled with speculation about my role. An irresponsible TV ad by a group calling itself the Lincoln Project suggested that when I presided over the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes, it would prove that I knew “it’s over,” and that by doing my constitutional duty, I would be “putting the final nail in the coffin” of the president’s re-election. To my knowledge, it was the first time anyone implied I might be able to change the outcome. It was designed to annoy the president. It worked. During a December cabinet meeting, President Trump told me the ad “looked bad for you.” I replied that it wasn’t true: I had fully supported the legal challenges to the election and would continue to do so.
On Dec. 19, the president mentioned plans for a rally in Washington on Jan. 6. I thought that would be useful to call attention to the proceedings. I had just spoken with a senator about the importance of vetting concerns about the election before Congress and the American people. At the White House on Dec. 21, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan led lawmakers in a discussion about plans to bring objections. I promised that all properly submitted objections would be recognized and fully debated.
On Dec. 23, my family boarded Air Force Two to spend Christmas with friends. As we flew across America, President Trump retweeted an obscure article titled “Operation Pence Card.” It alluded to the theory that if all else failed, I could alter the outcome of the election on Jan. 6. I showed it to Karen, my wife, and rolled my eyes.
On Dec. 30, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley announced that he would co-sponsor election objections brought by representatives. I welcomed Sen. Hawley’s decision because it meant we would have a substantive debate. Without a senator’s support, I would have been required to dismiss House objections without debate, something I didn’t want to do.
Early on New Year’s Day, the phone rang. Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert and other Republicans had filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to declare that I had “exclusive authority and sole discretion” to decide which electoral votes should count. “I don’t want to see ‘Pence Opposes Gohmert Suit’ as a headline this morning,” the president said. I told him I did oppose it. “If it gives you the power,” he asked, “why would you oppose it?” I told him, as I had many times, that I didn’t believe I possessed that power under the Constitution.
“You’re too honest,” he chided. “Hundreds of thousands are gonna hate your guts. . . . People are gonna think you’re stupid.”
On Saturday, Jan. 2, I instructed my chief of staff to issue a statement supporting the right of lawmakers to bring objections under the Electoral Count Act. By Sunday morning, the headline “Pence Welcomes Congressional Republicans’ Bid to Challenge Electoral Votes” was everywhere. When the president called me that morning, his mood had brightened. “You have gone from very unpopular to popular!” he exclaimed. But then he pressed me again to reject electoral votes unilaterally. “You can be a historic figure,” he said, “but if you wimp out, you’re just another somebody.”
On Jan. 4, the president’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, summoned me to the Oval Office for a meeting with a long list of attendees, including the legal scholar John Eastman. I listened respectfully as Mr. Eastman argued that I should modify the proceedings, which require that electoral votes be opened and counted in alphabetical order, by saving the five disputed states until the end. Mr. Eastman claimed I had the authority to return the votes to the states until each legislature certified which of the competing slate of electors for the state was correct. I had already confirmed that there were no competing electors.
Mr. Eastman repeatedly qualified his argument, saying it was only a legal theory. I asked, “Do you think I have the authority to reject or return votes?”
He stammered, “Well, it’s never been tested in the courts, so I think it is an open question.”
At that I turned to the president, who was distracted, and said, “Mr. President, did you hear that? Even your lawyer doesn’t think I have the authority to return electoral votes.” The president nodded. As Mr. Eastman struggled to explain, the president replied, “I like the other thing better,” presumably meaning that I could simply reject electoral votes.
On Jan. 5, I got an urgent call that the president was asking to see me in the Oval Office. The president’s lawyers, including Mr. Eastman, were now requesting that I simply reject the electors. I later learned that Mr. Eastman had conceded to my general counsel that rejecting electoral votes was a bad idea and any attempt to do so would be quickly overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court. This guy didn’t even believe what he was telling the president.
Right before going to bed, I saw that the Trump campaign had issued a statement. The New York Times reported that I had told the president I didn’t believe I had the power to block congressional certification of the election. That was true, but the statement called it “fake news.” I had a feeling that Jan. 6, 2021, was going to be a very long day.
I rose early that day and worked on my statement to Congress. When the phone rang a little after 11 a.m., it was the president. “Despite the press release you issued last night,” I said, “I have always been forthright with you, Mr. President.” I reiterated that I didn’t believe I had the power to decide which electoral votes would count and said I would be issuing a statement to Congress confirming that before the joint session started.
The president laid into me. “You’ll go down as a wimp,” he said. “If you do that, I made a big mistake five years ago!”
But when he said, “You’re not protecting our country, you’re supposed to support and defend our country!” I calmly reminded him, “We both took an oath to support and defend the Constitution.”
As I headed to the Capitol, President Trump took the stage. He told the crowd: “I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election.” Repeating the argument made by the crank lawyers standing just offstage, he said, “All he has to do, all this is, this is from the No. 1, or certainly one of the top, constitutional lawyers in our country. . . . All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.”
As our motorcade arrived at the Capitol, I saw thousands of protesters standing peacefully on the East Lawn. I felt compassion for all the good people who had traveled to Washington having been told that the outcome of the election could be changed. They cheered as we entered. I turned to my daughter and sighed: “God bless those people. They’re gonna be so disappointed.”
I had no idea that what was later described as a “wall of people” had formed about a block west of the Capitol. As I led senators onto the House floor, the mood was solemn. There was no indication of the mayhem unfolding outside. Speaker Nancy Pelosi gaveled the chamber into session a little after 1 p.m.
When the electoral votes for Arizona were opened, Rep. Paul Gosar rose to raise the first objection of the day, co-sponsored by 60 representatives. When I asked if the motion had a Senate sponsor, Ted Cruz rose. I adjourned the joint session and accompanied senators back to their chamber, still oblivious to the riot outside.
Forty minutes into the session, Republican James Lankford of Oklahoma had the floor when the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, seated a few feet in front of me, leaned back in her chair and whispered: “Mr. Vice President, protesters have breached the building’s doors on the first floor. Just informing you.”
A member of my Secret Service detail walked onto the Senate floor, straight to my chair, and said, “Mr. Vice President, we gotta go.” I was confident that the U.S. Capitol Police would soon have the situation in hand, so I told him we’d wait in the nearby ceremonial office reserved for my use as president of the Senate.
Soon my lead Secret Service agent, Timothy Giebels, walked into that crowded office and said, “Sir, we’ve got to get you out of the building.” The protesters who had smashed their way into the House side of the Capitol were heading for the Senate. I later learned that many had come looking for me.
I told my detail that I wasn’t leaving my post. Mr. Giebels pleaded for us to leave. The rioters had reached our floor. I pointed my finger at his chest and said, “You’re not hearing me, I’m not leaving! I’m not giving those people the sight of a 16-car motorcade speeding away from the Capitol.”
“OK,” he answered in a voice that made it clear that it wasn’t. “Well, we can’t stay here. This office only has a glass door, and we can’t protect you.”
My daughter Charlotte, sensing my frustration, asked, “Isn’t there somewhere else dad can go that is still in the Capitol?” Mr. Giebels said we could move to the loading dock and garage, a few stories below. I agreed.
The steps were secured. We walked out into the hall slowly. All around us was a blur of motion and chaos: security and police officers directing people to safety, staffers shouting and running for shelter. I heard footsteps and angry chanting. Making our way to the basement of the Capitol took a few extra minutes because I insisted that we walk, not run. The Secret Service team grudgingly accommodated me.
Arriving in the loading dock, we saw that our motorcade had been repositioned, with all the cars pointed toward a ramp leading out. Mr. Giebels began to escort us toward our cars. I stopped and said, “I’m not getting in the car.”
“Sir,” he replied, “we’re just going to have you wait in the car, but we are not leaving the Capitol.”
“Tim, I believe you,” I said. “You’re a man of integrity, but you’re not driving that car.” I knew that if we got into the car, somebody would tell the driver to get us out of the building.
We had no television in the garage, so my staff and security team briefed me on the situation using police radio communications and Twitter. The House and Senate leaders had been whisked away to a secure location off Capitol Hill, but other members were barricaded in the House chamber as Capitol Police worked to hold back the mob.
My unflappable assistant Zach Bauer walked up sheepishly and handed me his phone. The president had sent a tweet at 2:24 p.m.: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”
Rioters were ransacking the Capitol. Some of them, I was later told, were chanting, “Hang Mike Pence!” I ignored the tweet and got back to work.
My chief of staff arranged for a conference call with the congressional leadership. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made the point that it was imperative Congress reconvene as soon as possible to complete the vote count. Everyone agreed.
By 2:38 p.m., it appeared that cooler heads had prevailed at the White House. The president tweeted, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” A half hour later, he urged the rioters to “remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order—respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue.” At 4:17 p.m., the president issued a video telling the rioters, “I know your pain, I know your hurt . . . but you have to go home now, we have to have peace.”
By 7 p.m., we had been cleared to return to my office. When the session reconvened, everything changed. Many lawmakers withdrew support for objections that had been properly filed. Beyond the violence and destruction, the Jan. 6 rioters had managed to end the debate over election irregularities. At around 3:40 a.m., Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota read the results of the 2020 election.
I met with the president on Jan. 11. He looked tired, and his voice seemed fainter than usual. “How are you?” he began. “How are Karen and Charlotte?” I replied tersely that we were fine and told him that they had been at the Capitol on Jan. 6. He responded with a hint of regret, “I just learned that.” He then asked, “Were you scared?”
“No,” I replied, “I was angry. You and I had our differences that day, Mr. President, and seeing those people tearing up the Capitol infuriated me.”
He started to bring up the election, saying that people were angry, but his voice trailed off.
I told him he had to set that aside, and he responded quietly, “Yeah.”
I said, “Those people who broke into the Capitol might’ve been supporters, but they are not our movement.” For five years, we had both spoken to crowds of the most patriotic, law-abiding, God-fearing people in the country.
With genuine sadness in his voice, the president mused: “What if we hadn’t had the rally? What if they hadn’t gone to the Capitol?” Then he said, “It’s too terrible to end like this.”
On Jan. 14, the day after President Trump was impeached for the second time, I stopped by the Oval Office. The night before, he had unequivocally denounced the violence at the Capitol and called for calm and national unity. I congratulated him on his address. “I knew you’d like it,” he said. He seemed discouraged, so I reminded him that I was praying for him.
“Don’t bother,” he said.
As I stood to leave, he said, “It’s been fun.”
“A privilege, Mr. President,” I answered.
“Yeah, with you.”
Walking toward the door leading to the hallway, I paused, looked the president in the eye, and said, “I guess we will just have to disagree on two things.”
“What?”
I referred to our disagreement about Jan. 6 and then said, “I’m also never gonna stop praying for you.”
He smiled: “That’s right—don’t ever change.”
Mr. Pence was vice president of the United States, 2017-21. This is adapted from his memoir, “So Help Me God,” forthcoming Nov. 15.
-
well 1/6 was a total fiasco doomed to fail
than accomplished nothing
and never could
and only served to give the LEFT endless talking points for eternity
in MHO
you call Pence traitor
I call Trump a fool
-
well 1/6 was a total fiasco doomed to fail
than accomplished nothing
and never could
and only served to give the LEFT endless talking points for eternity
in MHO
you call Pence traitor
I call Trump a fool
Both are correct. I warned people J6 was a trap.
They mistakenly thought it was still the American Republic.
-
Mike Pence Reads the Trump Indictment
He ‘can’t defend’ the conduct but thinks the case is also political.
By The Editorial BoardFollow
June 13, 2023 6:52 pm ET
Former Vice President and Republican presidential candidate Mike Pence PHOTO: JONATHAN DRAKE/REUTERS
As Mike Pence walked into the Journal’s New York conference room Tuesday afternoon, the cable-TV chyron was carrying news from South Florida: “Donald Trump Now Under Arrest.” More details from our Q&A will be coming soon, but we couldn’t sit on Mr. Pence’s reply to the charges against his old running mate.
OPINION: FREE EXPRESSION
Free Expression
Pence on Trump, the GOP and His Campaign for President
“Having read the indictment,” the former Veep says, “these are very serious allegations. And I can’t defend what is alleged. But the President is entitled to his day in court, he’s entitled to bring a defense, and I want to reserve judgment until he has the opportunity to respond.” He emphasizes both that “no one is above the law” and also that “as Americans, you’re innocent until proven guilty.” That said, he seems troubled by what Mr. Trump is alleged to have casually stashed at Mar-a-Lago.
“The suggestion that there were documents pertaining to the defense capabilities of the United States and our allies, our nuclear program, to potential vulnerabilities of the United States and our allies . . . ” Mr. Pence says. “Even the inadvertent release of that kind of information could compromise our national security and the safety of our armed forces. And, frankly, having two members of our immediate family serving in the armed forces of the United States, I will never diminish the importance of protecting our nation’s secrets.”
Then he turns, calling out the Justice Department’s role in “two and a half years of a Russia hoax,” as the context for the charges against Mr. Trump. “After years of politicization,” Mr. Pence says, “it’s hard for me to believe that politics didn’t play some role in this decision.” He thinks Attorney General Merrick Garland owes it to the public to explain “what if any role he played, or his judgment played, in the decision to move forward with an unprecedented indictment of a former President of the United States.
“I think millions of Americans are deeply troubled by this indictment, particularly given the fact that Hillary Clinton engaged in very similar behavior in the 2016 campaign and did not face indictment. And we’ve got to have equal treatment under the law in this country,” Mr. Pence says. “My bottom line is this: I think the American people have lost confidence in the Department of Justice, not just because of this, but because of, really, a long series of abuses that have come to light.”
If he’s elected in 2024, Mr. Pence promises to clean house: “We’re going to give the Department of Justice a fresh start, with men and women who are respected on both sides of the aisle for their commitment to the law.
“And I’ll leave it at that.”
-
Pence is a traitorous scumbag.
Mike Pence Reads the Trump Indictment
He ‘can’t defend’ the conduct but thinks the case is also political.
By The Editorial BoardFollow
June 13, 2023 6:52 pm ET
Former Vice President and Republican presidential candidate Mike Pence PHOTO: JONATHAN DRAKE/REUTERS
As Mike Pence walked into the Journal’s New York conference room Tuesday afternoon, the cable-TV chyron was carrying news from South Florida: “Donald Trump Now Under Arrest.” More details from our Q&A will be coming soon, but we couldn’t sit on Mr. Pence’s reply to the charges against his old running mate.
OPINION: FREE EXPRESSION
Free Expression
Pence on Trump, the GOP and His Campaign for President
“Having read the indictment,” the former Veep says, “these are very serious allegations. And I can’t defend what is alleged. But the President is entitled to his day in court, he’s entitled to bring a defense, and I want to reserve judgment until he has the opportunity to respond.” He emphasizes both that “no one is above the law” and also that “as Americans, you’re innocent until proven guilty.” That said, he seems troubled by what Mr. Trump is alleged to have casually stashed at Mar-a-Lago.
“The suggestion that there were documents pertaining to the defense capabilities of the United States and our allies, our nuclear program, to potential vulnerabilities of the United States and our allies . . . ” Mr. Pence says. “Even the inadvertent release of that kind of information could compromise our national security and the safety of our armed forces. And, frankly, having two members of our immediate family serving in the armed forces of the United States, I will never diminish the importance of protecting our nation’s secrets.”
Then he turns, calling out the Justice Department’s role in “two and a half years of a Russia hoax,” as the context for the charges against Mr. Trump. “After years of politicization,” Mr. Pence says, “it’s hard for me to believe that politics didn’t play some role in this decision.” He thinks Attorney General Merrick Garland owes it to the public to explain “what if any role he played, or his judgment played, in the decision to move forward with an unprecedented indictment of a former President of the United States.
“I think millions of Americans are deeply troubled by this indictment, particularly given the fact that Hillary Clinton engaged in very similar behavior in the 2016 campaign and did not face indictment. And we’ve got to have equal treatment under the law in this country,” Mr. Pence says. “My bottom line is this: I think the American people have lost confidence in the Department of Justice, not just because of this, but because of, really, a long series of abuses that have come to light.”
If he’s elected in 2024, Mr. Pence promises to clean house: “We’re going to give the Department of Justice a fresh start, with men and women who are respected on both sides of the aisle for their commitment to the law.
“And I’ll leave it at that.”
-
Over the top rhetoric GM.
There were perfectly legit reasons for rejecting the Trump-Eastman theory under which they sought to have Pence act.
-
Over the top rhetoric GM.
There were perfectly legit reasons for rejecting the Trump-Eastman theory under which they sought to have Pence act.
Pence could have forced the stolen election in front of the SCOTUS. He betrayed his oath and his duty. He was compromised by the deep state.
-
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/02/whats_the_deal_with_mike_pence.html
-
Here is the problem with that.
ALL of the legal actions asserting fraud lost. MANY of them were absurd, and as best as we can tell were grifting operations (see e.g. Sydney Powell and Lynn Wood).
As ALL of us here have vigorously asserted, there was, and is, good reason to believe there was serious skullduggery.
What would have been Pence's basis?
a) on the merits?
b) as a matter of Constitutional Authority for the Vice President to do such?
For bonus points, distinguish a) disagreeing with Pence, and b) his being a traitor on J6?
-
https://twitchy.com/samj/2023/07/14/watch-tucker-carlson-just-ended-pences-campaign-whether-he-knows-it-or-not-n2385411